Wisconsin Judge Prevents Nurses from Going to New Employer

Over the past couple of decades, in the private sector employers have crafted the norm of at will employment. Then during the previous administration this at will idea found it's way into civilian federal service with the requirement that federal employees complete not one, but TWO years of new employee probation. This, all because, you know, employees are lazy and shiftless. The sole purpose of this "at will" employment trend has been to guard the interest of corporations.

Now dig this... In Wisconsin, it is not unusual for a new nurse, during onboarding, to be compelled to sign a form acknowledging that a FOUR week notice to quit is required in order to vacate a position. Then, buried deeper in the paperwork is a form that says that your employment is “at will.” So, they can fire a nurse on a dime, cause hey, "at will." But, the same nurse must give a 4 week notice to quit?

Also, there are certain healthcare organizations that, if a nurse does not work out their notice, or does not provide advanced notice to quit, the company will pay all unpaid hours at MINIMUM wage. I personally know of two nurses that had to go through the time, expense, and stress to hire an attorney who to press the issue and the organization in order to be paid what is actually owed.

Also, as a nurse, if one is to refuse an unsafe assignment, or speak up about an unsafe assignment, it is not uncommon to be threatened by administration to be reported to the board of nursing for patient abandonment. When really, how can you abandon patients that you have not taken responsibility for? But, who has the time, or energy, to die on that sword, especially when safe or not, there are sick patients that need care. Also, it is not uncommon for management, as they are punching out at 5pm, to compel nurses to hold over to cover staffing shortages. Again, threats of patient abandonment.

These things that I am describing are not one off situations. These things happen routinely. Nurses have been over worked prior to the pandemic. Then when the pandemic hit, we became overworked selfless heroes, working in trash bags. Now that the nation, all the world really, is experiencing pandemic fatigue, we are being referred to in the press as selfish and money hungry wenches abandoning facilities, leaving a wake of staffing shortages as we depart to become guns for hire to the highest bidder. Which, by the way is at will employment at it’s finest.

Now, the same corporations, who championed “at will” employment, treat nurses as an expense rather than a valuable finite resource and they have decided to spend money on legal fees rather than paying the extra $7/hr that the nurses were asking. The hospital would have retained their staff and we would not be having this discussion.

But, instead, they are seeking to set a precedence, that in dire situations, nurses ought not be able to quit their jobs. Under the guise of protecting patients that don’t even exist they are attempting to interrupt the these nurses ability to make a living and the nurses are not even their employees anymore. Capitalism at its best, Ascension healthcare, paying what the market demands in order to hire employees with valuable and rare skills.

This whole issue, to many of the nurses ai've talked to feels like Theada Care is trying extend the concept of compelling nurses to work, against their will, so future patients won’t be “abandoned.” They argued that the public at large would be at risk without the nurses being under their employment.

Theda Care raised the alarm asking "where will the poor public receive their care?” I’ll tell you where… Across the street at the other hospital. You know, the one that values their staff and pays a competitive wage.

Hospitals, I'm pretty sure, receive the exact same reimbursement from insurance whether they are staffed adequately or understaffed. If this is so, then hospitals actually profit when they are short staffed.

Finally, we live in an age of a pandemic and emergency orders, issued by governors, that are in some cases extremely broad. For instance in Wisconsin, under the emergency order, patients lost the right to sue for malpractice… Patients could not sue at all, this included for errors that occurre during the delivery of routine care or during the course of elective procedures. This was unnecessarily broad and extremely protective of corporate interests at the expense of regular citizens. Just one example of the broad strokes our covid emergency order was written in.

Finally, many commenters have raised the constitutional issues that are at stake in this situation. To most of us, these constitutional ideas exist in some ethereal space completely disconnected from our reality. They are important to us, but they seem like distant schoolhouse rock ideas. We don’t “see” constitutional questions, we feel oppressive working conditions that rob us of our ability to earn the living that we want, in the way we want. These conditions have robbed many of us of our soul...

SeNd HeLp pLeAsE

In essence they are arguing these nurses have a non-compete, when they dont. As a judge I would approve this, disallowing the nurses from working for their new employer but also the old employer must keep paying them to sit at home. That'll put an end to these frivilous lawsuits quickly.

Would be nice to know what state or federal law doesn't allow this type of behavior.

For example, is it legal for a town to, let’s say, select 5 people and say they can only work as firemen for the local fire station and no one else is allowed to employ them because we absolutely need a fire station ?

There is "downtime" at the old place either way, since the nurses are not going to show up at the old hospital on Monday anyway. From the TFA:

> That means the seven health care workers would not be working at either hospital on Monday.

Seriously, read the laws, you are just spouting misinformation.